Judging by discussions with some of my colleagues, perhaps the most controversial opinion I can express in this paper is that the omission of predication from mainstream coreference resolution datasets and systems is a mistake.This is not to say that there are not several datasets which mark up coreference for predicates (see below); however since most kinds of predication are not covered by OntoNotes, mainstream papers, systems and the CoNLL shared tasks have not included these cases. For examples of how I think it should be handled, see the Appendix, as well as Section  REF Following an early period in the development of coreference datasets (notably ACE, [1]}) in which most nominal predicates were considered to corefer to their subjects (i.e. “Kim is a teacher” \(\Rightarrow \)  “Kim” \([]{coref}\)  “a teacher”), criticism expressed for example by [2]} and [3]} led to ON rejecting coreference in predication altogether. In this section I would like to suggest not only that ON's guidelines are an overreaction to the original criticism, but also that omission is neither a sufficient nor a necessary remedy for the problems that led to its rejection, an outcome left open by [2]} themselves.
